Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, May 16, 2018.
I was excited when Trump brought on RG. Not anymore. He's all over the place.
If it does come down to it, I don't think Rudy's "Nanny-Nanny-Boo-Boo-We're-Above-the-Law" Defense is going to sit well with the American People.
Is it’s come to his defense being:
He can’t be indicted because he’s president, we hope.
You still haven't answered my question. You say it's come to his defense being, "He can’t be indicted because he’s president, we hope." Again, his defense against what? In order to have a defense there has to be an offense. President Trump hasn't been accused of anything so he doesn't need a defense for anything.
"All we get from the Trump team is attacking the FBI and declaring a witch hunt"?
Number one, it is only certain people at the FBI who have been "attacked" (there's that melodramatic word again ), and for good reason. They showed their biased asses, with their text messages.
Second, the investigation obviously IS a politically-motivated witch hunt. Totally fair criticism.
Lastly, what is it we're supposed to "get from the Trump team" in response to a pointless, unfocused and fruitless investigation that has accomplished nothing but wasting taxpayer dollars and distracting the Administration from the important work of destroying Obama's legacy and making America great again? Hugs, kisses and gift baskets?
Defense against what?
... of course, there will be exceptions
[QOTE="Tjgators, post: 10462549, member: 4504"]I was excited when Trump brought on RG. Not anymore. He's all over the place.[/QUOTE]
If I were Trump's lawyer, my position would be that the question of indictment is irrelevant because Trump is innocent. The statement today is like the movie Vacation when Chevy Chase drags the dog with his car. Imogene Coca: "Dog Killer." Chevy Chase: "You can't prove that."
But, I am not Trump's advocate and am free to keep an open mind.
Definitely not a smart thing to crow about.
Don’t know what’s going on wirh Rudy, but his public statements seem to hurt Trump a lot more often than they help.
There's a method to his madness. Everybody wondered why in the hell Giuliani put out that information a couple weeks ago, about Trump paying Cohen fees which Cohen then used (unsuccessfully, as it turns out) to buy off Stormy Daniels.
Fast forward two weeks, President Trump files a mandatory financial disclosure statement yesterday, and lo and behold, there was the itemized accounting for the payments to Cohen, which "loose cannon" Giuliani had "crazily" revealed a couple weeks ago. He knew it was going to come out so he softened the battlefield by putting it out there first, on his own terms. It would've been a firestorm if the TDS media found out about it for the first time by discovering it in the disclosure form yesterday.
By the way, the accounting in that form (showing that it was a reimbursed expense) kills any chance of trying to nail Trump or Cohen for illegal campaign finance shenanigans associated with that payment to Daniels.
Sorry, but there is more to the story than that. That disclosure should have been made in last year's filing, because it predated the last reporting period. Rudy disclosing this forced Trump to include this payment which he illegally tried to hide last year.
You are both right and wrong. Should have been released last year and Guiliani softened the blow. And, as Gordon attempted to point out, he did so so that the Trump Deranged Sycophants could come to his defense. As for the accounting and after the fact disclosure, that is up to the people who look at the money trail.
Office of Government Ethics today referred last year's and this year's disclosure to Rosenstein.
His defense against the Investigation, again I never claimed he was accused of a specific crime to this point. If you want to get into a semantic argument about “defense” it will be a one way conversation. Though it is ironic that it is his own lawyer bringing up the word indictment.
As far as the “witch Hunt”, it is entirely of his own making. Captain genius decided to brag to foreign leaders about firing Comey over the Russia probe, after allegedly hinting to a subordinate investigating his admin to not investigate his friend. This after his awesome hiring practices (which have been on display time and again), got him a cadre of criminals who laundered money, colluded with foreign governments and lied to investigators about it. Once a special prosecutor is put in place, they are always going to work to justify their position. Which is exactly why he should have kept his mouth shut and not precipitated it. And yet all this is the fault of the dems in the minds of his followers.
And just last month he called the FBI and Justice Dept an embarrassment to our country, especially bad considering his vested interest when he said it. That is something that would have been unthinkable for any other commander and chief in our history. And he did it because he is trying to discredit them to protect himself and his friends.
If you honestly are going to defend it all, there isn’t much more to say.
One has to wonder if what was disclosed matches up with what they've found out from the Cohen raid or Mueller investigation.
The underlying financial transactions from the bank would have been subpoenaed from the bank or seized from Cohen in the execution of the search warrant if they were in his records. The missing SARS do not mean that the underlying financial transfers that the bank reported on in the SARS are missing. Who knows if Mueller has the transaction documents for his investigation or if the US Attorney for the SD NY has them?
Lol... The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch of government. Trump could easily just fire his subordinate than worry about the underline frying the boss.
Sounds like he's hungry.
Pandering for chicken is unbecoming.
Whatever Giuliani thinks he can't be indicted for.
Ahhh, nice! Now that's a clever answer!
@oragator1 and @WarDamnGator, you guys need to give Sixy some, "Wish I Would Have Said That" love for that one.
1) as said above, it’s unclear whether anyone can indict a president,
2) Mueller is likely unable to do the indictment regardless, as his appointment is as a special counsel, not an independent counsel. So this might just be an assessment of Muellers powers, not the president’s protections.